We find
that Respondent, Joseph Patrick Hudspeth, engaged in attorney
misconduct by neglecting clients' cases, making dishonest
statements to current and prospective clients, and failing to
timely respond to the Commission's demand for
information. For this misconduct, we conclude that Respondent
should be suspended for at least eighteen months without
automatic reinstatement.

This
matter is before the Court on the report of the hearing
officer appointed by this Court to hear evidence on the
Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission's
"Verified Complaint for Disciplinary Action, " and
on the post-hearing briefing by the parties. Respondent's
2008 admission to this state's bar subjects him to this
Court's disciplinary jurisdiction. See IND.
CONST. art. 7 § 4.

Procedural
Background and Facts

The
Commission filed a four-count "Verified Complaint for
Disciplinary Action" against Respondent on December 16,
2016, and we appointed a hearing officer. Following an
evidentiary hearing, the hearing officer issued his report on
January 4, 2018, finding Respondent committed violations as
charged.

Count
1. Respondent was hired in October 2009 by "Clients
1" to pursue claims for disability and/or damages for
their daughter, who was injured in a golf cart accident
during a high school event. In September 2010 Respondent
filed suit against "School" and "Golf
Club." Shortly thereafter, School sought discovery
(including requests for admission), Golf Club filed for
bankruptcy protection, and the court stayed the lawsuit
temporarily pending the bankruptcy. Respondent took no action
in the bankruptcy to see if the trustee would pursue the
claim of Clients 1. Golf Club was granted a discharge in the
bankruptcy case in January 2012, after which School renewed
its discovery requests. Respondent failed to respond to these
requests and to subsequent motions to compel and to deem
admissions made, prompting School to file a motion to
dismiss. Respondent submitted an untimely response and failed
to appear at a hearing on the motion to dismiss, which was
reset. Meanwhile, Clients 1 lost all contact with Respondent
and were unable to reach him, and they were unaware their
case was facing dismissal. Respondent did not appear at the
reset dismissal hearing, and the court granted the
School's motion to dismiss. Respondent did not notify
Clients 1 of the dismissal.

During
these disciplinary proceedings Respondent produced a letter
addressed to Clients 1 and dated one day after the trial
court's dismissal of the case, in which Respondent
deceptively wrote that the case had been dismissed because
Clients 1 could not establish 100% liability against School.
The hearing officer found that this letter was not sent to
Clients 1 but instead was created by Respondent during the
disciplinary process.

Count
2. In 2010 Respondent filed in federal court on behalf
of "Client 2" a petition for judicial review of an
administrative denial of Client 2's social security
disability claim. However, Respondent thereafter neglected
the case, resulting in a dismissal of the case in August
2012. Respondent did not inform Client 2 of the dismissal.
When asked by Client 2 in September 2013 about the status of
the case, Respondent falsely told her suit was pending and it
would take months to get a result. Client 2 later called the
court directly and learned her case had been dismissed.

Count
3. Respondent failed to timely respond to the
Commission's demands for information regarding a
grievance filed by Clients 1, leading to the initiation of
show cause proceedings in this Court. Those proceedings
eventually were dismissed after Respondent belatedly
complied.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Count
4. Two websites maintained by Respondent falsely
represented his experience, specialization, and other aspects
of his legal practice. More specifically, Respondent falsely
claimed that "he had 35 years of experience in the
[social security] industry, " falsely used the plural
"attorneys" to describe the members of his firm
even though Respondent was a solo practitioner, and falsely
claimed to be a specialist in areas of the law ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.